"i had learn to focus i what i could do rather what i couldn't do", Rick Hansen when asked about getting a disabling spinal cord injury at 15. He continues to raise money for spinal cord research and inspire peoople to "make a difference". He doesnt preach any religion.

I mostly just argue the usual stuff and make the occasional poll. I have not been here as regulsrly as before.

Logged

"i had learn to focus i what i could do rather what i couldn't do", Rick Hansen when asked about getting a disabling spinal cord injury at 15. He continues to raise money for spinal cord research and inspire peoople to "make a difference". He doesnt preach any religion.

But your statement implied that the scenario that you don't exist is more likely than the scenario that you do exist. If there is no evidence that you do exist (personally I can find more evidence for this than the contrary), then surely there must be evidence that you don't exist, if you think that is more probable?

Hi Mooby, welcome back. I was once part of WWGHA1 but I don't think we really ever crossed paths, so I doubt we know one another. I have enjoyed reading your response about micro/macro evolution and look forward to seeing more post of that nature.

-Kimberly

Logged

Thank you for considering my point of view; however wrong it may be to you.

I imagine none, but that's why I was asking Mooby. I'm curious as to why someone would make the statement, "I probably don't exist", rather than the statement, "I may not exist", without some evidence indicating why one state is more likely than the other (thus making it more "probably" ). I can think of evidence for existence, but not for non-existence- thus my curiosity. Perhaps Mooby knows something I don't?

Interesting you'd complain so much about our behaviour here and how the mods operate, but a theist like Maggie? She shows some pretty damn detestable behaviour, but she's just Maggie. ...We're not special in this respect.

Maggie has her positive and negatve points. I could say the same thing about qquite a few strong wiled ppl like Codd, DaveDave, etc, etc. It possible to intereact with them in some ways and have a good conversation but in others. Ou may encounter some derision.

This forum probably wasn't a great for her. She certainly doesn't seem to talk about it much.

Logged

"i had learn to focus i what i could do rather what i couldn't do", Rick Hansen when asked about getting a disabling spinal cord injury at 15. He continues to raise money for spinal cord research and inspire peoople to "make a difference". He doesnt preach any religion.

"i had learn to focus i what i could do rather what i couldn't do", Rick Hansen when asked about getting a disabling spinal cord injury at 15. He continues to raise money for spinal cord research and inspire peoople to "make a difference". He doesnt preach any religion.

Interesting you'd complain so much about our behaviour here and how the mods operate, but a theist like Maggie? She shows some pretty damn detestable behaviour, but she's just Maggie. ...We're not special in this respect.

Maggie has her positive and negatve points. I could say the same thing about qquite a few strong wiled ppl like Codd, DaveDave, etc, etc. It possible to intereact with them in some ways and have a good conversation but in others. Ou may encounter some derision.

This forum probably wasn't a great for her. She certainly doesn't seem to talk about it much.

Don't remember who Codd is, but I really didn't like DaveDave, I couldn't stand the bloke - I really couldn't understand the hype, I think he was a nasty piece of work TBH. Maggie probably does have her positive traits (as I'm sure DaveDave did too), but to be honest, I shouldn't be figuring out ways to *best* interact with people who react to things they don't like explosively. If they want to throw their toys out of the pram because somebody isn't rubbing them in the right way then it's their problem. If I don't like how somebody's interacting with me, I either deal with it or talk to them about it, not throw hissy fits at people. I'd say that's the reasonable thing to do.

Logged

“It is difficult to understand the universe if you only study one planet” - Miyamoto MusashiWarning: I occassionally forget to proofread my posts to spot typos or to spot poor editing.

Don't remember who Codd is, but I really didn't like DaveDave, I couldn't stand the bloke

- I really couldn't understand the hype, I think he was a nasty piece of work TBH. Maggie probably does have her positive traits (as I'm sure DaveDave did too), but to be honest, I shouldn't be figuring out ways to *best* interact with people who react to things they don't like explosively. If they want to throw their toys out of the pram because somebody isn't rubbing them in the right way then it's their problem. If I don't like how somebody's interacting with me, I either deal with it or talk to them about it, not throw hissy fits at people. I'd say that's the reasonable thing to do.

Well, nothing wrong with avoiding annoying people. And forums ban people based on the objectives of the forum in question. This is an atheist forum with an objective to promote "naturalism

I get along with maggie fine; we dont agree on evrything. i consider her a friend and have seen she has a compassionate side. I am not supplying facts on her intereactions with other users but simply acknowledging that there were atheists with whom she didn't get along. I did casually observe that she insulted some of them in the course of the arguments. Explosive isn't a word that comes to mind wrt her for me but again, I wasn't involved. I'd say, if one wanted to learn about church history, theology or cats/dogs, that maggie is knowledgible. Given that I'm mostly an atheist adn she is a catholic, obviously I am likely to disagree with her reasoning on the existence of God.

In terms of DaveDave, explosive might be a word That does work. I have not chatted with him for over a year. I found him a useful resource on genetics. . He is very passionate lol about pushing disbelief. There were some other issues he felt strongly about. I am not sure about his full point of view. He argues that homosexuality is not likely to be genetic. His view may have been misunderstood tho; he doesn't say its a "choice" but that perhaps a combination of factors are invollved. He doesnt pretend to know what those factors are or whether they are chemical,psychological or whatever. His view seems to have been that the question wasn't settled by the science yet. His concern with the gay gene involved the fertility question. For the record, Dr. Colins of the human genome project did believe that twin studies suggested a genetic component exists but davedave was skeptical of the interpreation of said studies ...

Back on the topic of Mooby, if he exists, he seems to dispute Descartes but I get the impression he is quite knowledgible in a few areas including American history. Of course one may argue, that is because i am not knowledgible on US history

Logged

"i had learn to focus i what i could do rather what i couldn't do", Rick Hansen when asked about getting a disabling spinal cord injury at 15. He continues to raise money for spinal cord research and inspire peoople to "make a difference". He doesnt preach any religion.

I get along with maggie fine; we dont agree on evrything. i consider her a friend and have seen she has a compassionate side. I am not supplying facts on her intereactions with other users but simply acknowledging that there were atheists with whom she didn't get along. I did casually observe that she insulted some of them in the course of the arguments. Explosive isn't a word that comes to mind wrt her for me but again, I wasn't involved. I'd say, if one wanted to learn about church history, theology or cats/dogs, that maggie is knowledgible. Given that I'm mostly an atheist adn she is a catholic, obviously I am likely to disagree with her reasoning on the existence of God.

It seems the Maggie you seem to know is not the Maggie we've seen. Heck I tried using reason and did so calmly and respectfully but on all accounts she ignored me and even made false claims about me (that I treated MM like crap, when I challenged her on this, she ignored me). She went around insulting everybody and making lots of wild claims about people she doesn't even know. I would definitely use the word explosive, because her behaviour was exactly that - all it took was small challenges to her arguments for her to go off on one - maybe she didn't like the way we make arguments around here? That shouldn't matter because nobody was actively provoking her before she went off on one. She seemed to have this preconceived idea that we're all a bunch of meanies and did all she could to bring out the 'mean' side of people.

We did all we could to reason with her and get her to interact with us on a much more calm and less explosive level and to stick to our forum rules, but it seems her agenda was not to participate in reasonable discussion. If she did, she would have embraced those who were trying to reason with her instead of trying to have a slagging match with people.

Unfortunately I don't think too highly of people who go out of their way to shit on other people, which is why I didn't like DaveDave either, I appreciated he was very knowledgeable and there's lots you could learn from him but he could be a real dick towards people and most of the time it was uncalled for and completely unreasonable. If we kept him, I don't think any of our theists would stay for very long because I'm sure they don't want to come here and take that kind of shit. Well heck, he was even a dick towards atheists here and even went on a rampage about 'true' atheists.

Logged

“It is difficult to understand the universe if you only study one planet” - Miyamoto MusashiWarning: I occassionally forget to proofread my posts to spot typos or to spot poor editing.